A New Obstacle to D&O Recoveries for Creditors
No matter how meritorious a claim may be, its ultimate value to creditors depends upon one thing — whether there is a viable source to satisfy any judgment obtained, since many D&Os do not have sufficient personal assets to satisfy any significant damages that may be awarded.
In a recently decided, but long-running dispute, the Third Circuit has found that oil producers do not hold automatically perfected security interests in product they sell to midstream intermediaries, nor are the proceeds generated through the subsequent sale of such product held in an implied trust for the benefit of the upstream producers.
Structured financing transactions make extensive use of entities formed for the specific purpose of reducing the likelihood that assets will be involved in a potential bankruptcy proceeding. Known as "bankruptcy-remote entities," or "BREs," these entities are subject to structures and covenants in financing documents and their own formation documents, which are designed to reduce the likelihood that the BRE will file for bankruptcy protection.
In July 2009, the LyondellBasell Litigation Trustee commenced litigation arising out of the merger of Lyondell and Basell, seeking the recovery of billions of dollars for the benefit of unsecured creditors. And, as Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn observed, the Trustee "threw the kitchen sink" at the defendants. Eight years of litigation and two bankruptcy judges later, we have a decision.
In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that bankruptcy courts may permissibly engage in "hypotheticals within hypotheticals" so long as the inquiry is factually warranted and is supported by appropriate evidence, and provided further that the hypothetical action would not contravene any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code.
This article focuses on the concept of "unreasonably small capital," which is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code or applicable state statutes. Consequently, the determination of adequate capital is fact-intensive and fertile grounds for litigation.
Buyers and servicers of “stale,” or time-barred, debt have been watching the bankruptcy and appellate courts closely of late, as court after court has ruled on whether a key component of their recovery strategy — seeking payment related to such time-barred debts by filing proofs of claim in bankruptcy — violates the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
A recent case dealt with an unusual question presented to a bankruptcy court by a debtor's medical device product liability claim: If, at the time of bankruptcy filing, the debtor has a potential civil claim that lacks some of the elements necessary for recovery (which elements may never develop), yet later receives settlement, are the proceeds of that settlement part of the bankruptcy estate?
When does a cause of action accrue for an injury caused by an implanted medical device? This is a question that usually comes up when determining whether an allegedly injured plaintiff has brought his or her lawsuit in a timely enough manner to keep the claim from being thrown out on statute of limitations grounds. But if the case has been settled, or tried to a verdict that is not appealed, aren't we done with this question? Not necessarily.
